So? Maybe they are wrong again. And maybe they are wrong on treating corporations as people and a thousand other decisions. Its possible. But that is just your opinion. And unless you are sitting on that court your opinion means nothing. Sorry
Unless its life threatening the baby. BTW how come in the news when they report a pregnant woman being killed they say "unborn child" but everywhere else its called a fetus? If she wants to abort her body I guess she has that right, but it seems to me that she wants to abort someone else's body instead. If you don't like murder you have every right, but you can't interfere with someone's else's chioces. Mind your own business if your say son wants to commit suicide by shooting himself. - - - Updated - - - But my voice speaks loud to those in court.
Keep shouting into the wind if it makes you feel better. If anything the court is about to get MORE liberal. lol
Synonyms Examples Word Origin noun 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc. If it walks like a duck,and quacks like a duck. What a foolish game. Of course a fetus is a parsite dependent upon the mother for its existence. What the hell as this to do with any kind of rational debate about abortion?
No, a fetus is not a person and you claiming it is is sure proof you have not given a thought to abortion or have done any research or even read a few threads here ..... And before you do the usual "WAHHH, you said a fetus isn't human"...I said it isn't A human...it is not A person.....and it has no mystical right to life...
You can speak as loudly as you like but volume doesn't sway the court. You need facts for that and you haven't any...
IMO it is parasitic in the case of rape and should be removed unless the woman wants to keep it. IMO it is unwise to keep it due to the probability of defective genes from the rapist.
I don't care what you call a fetus (although I think calling it unborn is kind of vampire movie creepy). The point is that biologically a fetus needs a host and the host doesn't want to be one. Period. The fetus is living off the woman...not the other way around. An adult woman should have dominion and rights over her own body. A fetus doesn't and shouldn't have special rights that require enslaving a woman for its own development. The law in most industrialized countries simply recognizes that the sentient adult woman's rights are primary...as it should be. Abortion isn't murder and qualifying it as such isn't worthy of a response. Again, stupid argument. We're talking about an adult woman who's making private health choices about an unwanted pregnancy. That doesn't indicate that she's mentally unwell...it simply implies that she wasn't prepared to get pregnant, may not have the means or willingness to carry a child or to raise a child and doesn't want to be used as a host. These are personal, private health decisions. You have the right to make those decisions, so do I and so does anyone else. No one is forcing any woman to have an abortion...that's a decision she makes knowing her own circumstances. You do not have the right to disrupt the personal medical decisions of other people. Mind your own business and stop trying to interfere with other people's private medical rights. Women have been having abortions since the dawn of time. Industrialized countries have very reasonable laws which protect women's rights. You cannot, and will not ever, get rid of abortion...to think that you can is ridiculous. In Canada...for instance...abortions are covered under their national health policy. The pandora's box on abortion and women's health was opened a very long time ago. What is happening is that politicians pander to ignorant, extremist religious people who are nosy and self-righteous to try to make it seem like you have some power over other people's personal choices. They use it as a wedge issue for the dumb. But only the biggest idiots actually think that they're actually going to be able to remove abortion rights. You can't, you won't and, more importantly, that you think that you should have the right to interfere with the medical rights of private adult women is revolting. If you were a real humanitarian and cared about children and people, you wouldn't be picking on troubled pregnant women...you'd be helping the poor. Go do some charity work and stop trying to put your fat nose in the medical decisions of people who don't care about your opinion.
justice Antonin Scalia was pro-death, but he was also anti-choice, so yes, some here probably are pro-death
Wars result in the death of innocents so you are pro-death by your own definition. - - - Updated - - - A fetus is not a person in the eyes of the law until viability and even then it still doesn't have the same rights that it inherits at birth. - - - Updated - - - Nope! A fetus is only entitled to the rights that the woman carrying it is willing to grant it.
Human women get pregnant with human fetuses. Its not a fish or a lizard fetus. However, that's not the material point. The material point is that the fetus requires a host organism to carry it to term. If that host organism-the pregnant woman-is unwilling, she should have the right to have control over her own body and how it is used. She should never be used as a slave to a fetus without her express consent. Bottom line, your opinions only apply to medical decisions for yourself. You do not have the right to interfere in the private medical rights of other citizens. Mind your own business and stop trying to bully women.
You had no right to live because fetuses don't have rights. They don't need to be considered parasites in order for abortion to be perfectly legal. Parasite or not, they are still a dependent connected part of the mother's body until birth, which is why birth is the starting point for all of our de facto treatment of people AS people. Prior to that, a fetus is only considered a person for the sake of the abortion debate. In no other areas do we officially or casually treat a fetus as if it's actually a person present in our world. That's why, for example, people say they are "having" a baby, not that they have one. Folks don't count a fetus as part of the a count of their children. Usually it's mentioned separately: "We have three kids and my wife is pregnant". Not we have four kids. Just examples of course meant to illustrate that even in our everyday lives we do not really consider a fetus to be a person, not a basis for an argument for or against abortion. Fetal personhood is a convenient argument to make against abortion and that's it. None of these fetal worshippers are fighting to have a fetus get a SS number upon conception. None of them are fighting to allow parents to claim a fetus on their taxes as a dependent(even though a fetus could be said to be even more of a dependent than a born child). It's only about abortion Lebowski!
"Pro-lifers" have now taken to just flat out making up LIES about Margaret Sanger. Claiming she "said something"....that turns out to be something totally false they read that a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy...."said he read somewhere on the Internet." That dishonesty.....a dishonesty that runs through the "movement" on many issues (Try to get a "pro-lifer" to answer a straight questions about if they'd prosecute a woman who self-induced an abortion as a "murderer")..... is a good reason why they have FAILED for 43 years.
" Is a fetus a parasite? " does a fetus require a host to survive? I would say it behaves like a parasite, but it is a fetus, not a parasite
Regardless of the interesting tactics and wording used by the extremely naïve Pro-Life people out there....A Human fetus is indeed Human, is not a baby, has not the biological ability to experience pain, does not think as a human being, and will never be accepted as a human being above the mother. Go ahead and keep on trying for another 50 years though....maybe your God will step in and fix things.
Hmm .. really, you do realise that there is a strong case to be made that abortion falls under self-defence and equal protection.
Then kill the rapist not the baby. Suppose the mother kills the baby at 5 month after it was born? Why is it murder then but not five months ago?
So we kill someone out of convenience? So is once the child is a financial host to the mother at five years old the mother can kill her? Does that includes financial burden? Why isn't it murder? She should've thought of the consequence (and the father as well) before having such relationships. What if the mother killed the baby at five years old? They are not personal if they affect someone else like the baby. That doesn't make it right. I'm defending the unborn child who is affected by the mother's choices.
